Publication Ethics

East Asian Review adheres to the ethical standards and guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is firmly committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly publication process. We strongly oppose all forms of plagiarism, duplicate publication, and simultaneous submissions. We require that all manuscripts submitted to the journal represent original work that has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere for consideration. This publication ethics statement outlines the responsibilities and expected ethical conduct of all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, members of the Editorial Board, peer reviewers, and the publisher. To uphold these standards, the journal's editorial office conducts screening and cross-checking procedures to ensure the originality of submitted manuscripts and to verify that they have not been published prior to submission.

Authorship and Co-authorship

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the research and manuscript. Authors should not list AI tools as an author or co-author, nor cite AI tools as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans. Authors must provide a declaration of their respective contributions during submission.

Any change in authorship after submission must be approved by all authors, supported by a written justification, and submitted to the editor for review. Changes after the final revision will only be considered under exceptional circumstances.

Gift, ghost, and honorary authorship are prohibited and may result in corrective action in accordance with COPE guidelines. Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged with their permission.

Post-publication Discussion

Readers, researchers, and other stakeholders are encouraged to communicate any comments, concerns, or observations regarding published content to the editorial office. Constructive post-publication discussions may be submitted as letters to the editor or formal responses and may be considered for publication following editorial review.

When errors, omissions, or inaccuracies are identified in published work, the editorial team will assess the matter and, where appropriate, publish a correction, erratum, or corrigendum linked to the original article to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

In cases involving suspected research misconduct, data falsification, plagiarism, or other ethical breaches, an investigation will be conducted in accordance with COPE guidelines and may involve consultation with authors, reviewers, and relevant institutions. Depending on the findings, appropriate actions may include the publication of a correction, an Expression of Concern, or a retraction.

All post-publication notices will be made openly accessible to ensure transparency and to maintain the integrity, reliability, and credibility of the scholarly record. The editorial team is committed to addressing post-publication issues promptly, fairly, and transparently.

Conflict of Interest

All participants in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, and editors, must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could affect the review, interpretation, or publication of a manuscript. Conflicts may be financial, personal, professional, institutional, or otherwise capable of influencing objectivity.

Authors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and funding sources at the time of submission. Reviewers should declare any competing interests and decline review assignments when impartiality cannot be maintained. Editors and editorial board members must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists.

Failure to disclose relevant conflicts of interest may result in corrective actions, including the publication of an Expression of Concern, article retraction, or other measures consistent with COPE guidelines. Transparency in the disclosure of competing interests is essential to maintaining the integrity and credibility of the scholarly record.

Data Availability

Authors must report research methods and findings accurately, transparently, and in sufficient detail to support verification and, where appropriate, reproducibility. The use of AI in the research or manuscript preparation process must be disclosed.

Data fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation are prohibited and may result in rejection, retraction, or other corrective actions. Authors are encouraged to make research data available through appropriate repositories or, where this is not possible, to clearly explain any restrictions on data access.

The editorial team may request access to underlying data to verify reported findings. Transparency, data integrity, and reproducibility are essential principles of responsible scholarly publishing.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

The data, results, or analyses presented in the submitted article do not violate the protection of human subjects or other valid privacy or security concerns. Please include this information after the conclusion of the article.

• If the research did not involve human subjects, animal subjects, or other valid privacy or security concerns, please note that it uses publicly accessible data and discloses the sources (URLs, websites, books, etc.).
• If the research involved human subjects, animal subjects, or other valid privacy or security concerns, please note that the author(s) had obtained the interviewees’, participants’, or other related parties’ consent to publish the work.

Screening for Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that all submitted work is original, properly attributed, and compliant with applicable copyright and licensing requirements. Any use of published text, data, figures, tables, or other materials must be appropriately cited and, where necessary, accompanied by permission from the copyright holder.

Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and any unauthorized use of intellectual property constitute serious breaches of publication ethics. All submissions may be screened using plagiarism-detection software. A similarity index of up to 20% may be acceptable; however, the intentional use of uncited material, including AI-generated content presented without proper disclosure or attribution, is not permitted regardless of the overall similarity score.

The Responsible Use of AI-Tool Policy

1. For Author 
Authors must disclose any substantive use of AI tools in manuscript preparation through an AI Declaration Statement submitted with the manuscript. The disclosure should identify the AI tool used, its purpose, and the extent of human oversight. Such statements may be published to promote transparency and accountability. Routine grammar, spelling, and punctuation checks do not require disclosure unless the AI tool significantly alters the content, structure, or organization of the text, indicated by the high percentage of AI index. The use of AI-based accessibility tools does not require disclosure when used solely for accessibility purposes. Where AI is used as part of the research process, its application must be described appropriately in the Methods section. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of their work regardless of any AI assistance used.

2. For Editor
Editors are responsible for ensuring the integrity, fairness, and quality of the editorial process and must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Manuscripts and their contents must not be uploaded to AI tools or external platforms where confidentiality, intellectual property rights, or data privacy may be compromised. Editorial decisions require independent human judgment and cannot be delegated to AI tools. While AI may be used in a limited, supportive capacity, such as improving the language of editorial correspondence or assisting with literature searches, editors remain fully responsible and accountable for all editorial assessments, decisions, and communications. Editors may therefore only use AI tools in a supportive capacity, for example to improve the language or structure of their decision letters, or to assist with a background literature search, provided that confidentiality is maintained and human control and oversight are exercised.

3. For Reviewer
Peer review is conducted under strict standards of confidentiality. Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and related materials as confidential documents and must not disclose, share, or use unpublished content for personal or professional advantage. To protect authors' confidentiality, intellectual property, and privacy rights, reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts or any portion of their contents to AI tools or external platforms. Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, and critical evaluations of the scholarly work. AI tools cannot replace professional judgment in the peer-review process, and reviewers remain fully responsible and accountable for the content, accuracy, and integrity of their review reports.

Authors must adhere to the following guidelines

1. The authorship should balance intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis, and writing of the manuscript against other work in relation to the research. If there is no task that can reasonably be attributed to a particular individual, this individual should not be credited with the authorship.
2. Authors must declare that the work reported is their own and that they are the copyright owner (or else have obtained the copyright owner's permission).
3. Authors must declare that the submitted article and its essential content have not previously been published and are not being considered for publication elsewhere.
4. The author should avoid disputes over attribution of academic credit. Therefore, it is helpful to decide early on who will be credited as corresponding author, contributors, and who will be acknowledged.
5. Authors must take public responsibility for the content of their paper. It is unethical to submit a manuscript to more than one journal concurrently.
6. Any conflict of interest must be clearly stated.
7. Authors must acknowledge the data sources of their research and should acknowledge financial support sources to the research if any.
8. All errors discovered in the manuscript after submission must be quickly communicated to the Editor.
9. Authors should state that the papers they submit have been approved by the relevant research ethics committee or institutional review board. If human participants were involved, manuscripts must be accompanied by a statement that the participants had signed informed consent forms.
10. Authors should submit a short description of all contributions to their manuscript. Each author's contribution should be described in brief. Authors of research papers should state whether they had complete access to the study data that support the publication. Contributors who do not qualify as authors should also be listed and their particular contribution described. This information should appear as an acknowledgment.
11. Authors should include information about their research fundings in their manuscripts.
12. Authors have a right to appeal editorial decisions.

Reviewers must adhere to the following guidelines

1. All manuscripts are reviewed in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry nor political values of the authors.
2. Any observed conflict of interest during the review process must be communicated to the editor.
3. All information pertaining to the manuscript is kept confidential.
4. Any information that may be the reason for a publication rejection must be communicated to the Editor.
5. The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who may be asked (with the editor’s permission) to give opinions on specific sections.
6. Submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.
7. Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations unless they have the authors’ permission.
8. Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and justifiable reports.
9. Reviewers assigned to an article will comment on the following items:
10. The importance, originality, and timeliness of the study
11. Strengths and weaknesses of the study design and data analysis for research papers or the analysis and commentary for essays
12. Writing, organization, and presentation
13. The degree to which the findings justify the conclusion
14. The relevance, usefulness, and comprehensibility of the article for the Journal’s target audience.

Editors must adhere to the following guidelines

1. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.
2. Editors must treat all submitted papers as confidential.
3. Editors should inform peer reviewers about this Misconduct.
4. Editors should encourage peer-reviewers to consider ethical issues raised by the research they are reviewing.
5. Editors should request additional information from authors if they feel this is required.
6. Editors should exercise sensitivity when publishing images of objects that might have cultural significance or cause offense.
7. Editors should inform readers if ethical breaches have occurred.
8. Editors should encourage peer-reviewers to decline peer-review request if they identify a conflict of interest with the manuscript.
9. Editors may assign peer-reviewers suggested by authors but should not consider suggestions made by authors as binding.
10. Editors should mediate all exchanges between authors and peer reviewers during the peer-review process (i.e. prior to publication). If agreement cannot be reached, editors should consider inviting comments from additional peer reviewer(s) if the editor feels that this would be helpful.
11. Decisions by editors about whether or not to publish submitted manuscripts must not be influenced by pressure from the editor's employer, the journal owner, or the publisher.
12. Editors should publish corrections for discovered errors that could affect the interpretation of data or information presented in a manuscript.
13. Editors should expect allegations of theft or plagiarism to be substantiated and should treat allegations of theft or plagiarism seriously.
14. Editors should keep peer-reviewers’ identities from authors. If peer-reviewers’ identities are revealed, editors should discourage authors from contacting peer-reviewers directly, especially when misconduct is suspected.
15. Editors should reserve the right to reject manuscripts if there is a doubt whether appropriate procedures have been followed. If a paper has been submitted from a country where there is no ethics committee or institutional review board, editors should use their own experience to judge whether or not the paper can be published. If the decision is made to publish a paper under this circumstance, a short statement should be included to explain this situation.
16. Editors should ensure timely peer-review and publication for manuscripts they receive, especially where findings may have important implications.
17. The Editorial Board is responsible for making publication decisions based on the reviewer’s evaluation, policies of the journal editorial board and legal restraint acting against plagiarism, libel, and copyright infringement.

Allegation of Publication Misconduct (Correction, Retraction, and Withdrawal)

While the Editorial Board takes all reasonable measures to ensure the integrity and originality of submitted and published works, there are practical limits to the extent to which misconduct can be detected during the editorial and peer-review processes. Therefore, we encourage reviewers, readers, and members of the academic community to report any suspected research or publication misconduct to the journal's help desk officer via email so that appropriate action can be taken in a timely manner refering to the guidelines by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The fraudulences include, but not limited to:

1. data fabrication,
2. data falsification,
3. plagiarism,
4. authorship fraud (ghost authorship, gift authorship, or honorary authorship),
5. conflict of interest, and/or
6. double submission and double publication

Upon receiving a credible allegation of misconduct, the Editorial Board will conduct a preliminary assessment under the direction of the Chief Editor. Where concerns arise regarding the ability of the Editorial Board to conduct an impartial investigation, or where a conflict of interest is identified, the Chief Editor may recommend that the relevant faculty authorities establish an independent committee to investigate the matter. If the allegation is substantiated through the investigation process, the Chief Editor may take appropriate corrective measures, including but not limited to:

1. publishing a correction (erratum or corrigendum),
2. retracting the article, 
3. withdrawing the article, and/or 
4. removing an author from the authorship record where justified by the findings.

The journal is committed to maintaining a professional, respectful, and constructive peer-review environment. Accordingly, reviewers' comments and editorial correspondence must not contain personal attacks, discriminatory remarks, or offensive language directed at authors. Editors and reviewers are expected to evaluate and critique the scholarly content of a submission rather than the individual researcher. Any correspondence containing inappropriate, abusive, or unprofessional statements may be edited or rejected by the Editorial Board.